Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn case you missed it--or, if you didn't miss it, in case you didn't have the energy to read the entire 9,000 words--Condoleezza Rice's interminable lead article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs is a doozy.
It's an extended fugue on the importance of democracy promotion, whether by hook or crook. "We recognize," she writes, "that democratic state building is now an urgent component of our national interest."
In the piece, Rice concocts something she calls "a uniquely American realism." In it, it's America's job to change the world, and in its own image:
"We have never accepted that we are powerless to change the world. Indeed, we have shown that by marrying American power and American values, we could help friends and allies expand the boundaries of what most thought realistic at the time."How to describe this disposition of ours? It is realism, of a sort. But it is more than that--what I have called our uniquely American realism."
Of course, the bastard child of that marriage between "American power" and "American values" is the war in Iraq, which Rice endorses. Some of Rice's gems:
"The democratization of Iraq and the democratization of the Middle East [are] linked. ... As Iraq emerges from its difficulties, the impact of its transformation is being felt in the rest of the region. ... Our long-term partnerships with Afghanistan and Iraq, to which we must remain deeply committed, our new relationships in Central Asia, and our long-standing partnerships in the Persian Gulf provide a solid geostrategic foundation for the generational work ahead of helping to bring about a better, more democratic, and more prosperous Middle East."
I love the euphemism about Iraq's "difficulties." But what she lays out is a "generational" U.S. effort to impose American "geostrategic" power in the Middle East and the Gulf. And, oh yeah, some of that democracy stuff.
The most amazing part of Z.Z. Rice's essay is her take on her own earlier Foreign Affairs piece, from 2000, in which she explicitly renounced nation building. Here is the passage from the 2008 piece:
"In these pages in 2000, I decried the role of the United States, in particular the U.S. military, in nation building. In 2008 it is absolutely clear that we will be involved in nation building for years to come."
That's it. "Fooled ya!" Now, Rice says that America has loaded up on nation building capacities, and that those capabilities must be expanded by the next president. She says Washington has "prepared a new generation of military leaders for stabilization and counterinsurgency missions, of which we will likely face more." She demands a "new kind of partnership between our military and civilian institutions." She calls for "better integration of the United States' institutions of hard power and soft power." And she warns: "Those who follow us must build on this foundation."
So there you go. John McCain or Barack Obama better take notes. Z.Z. Rice says they'll have no choice but to build new U.S. capabilities for global democratization.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Our Imperial Project.
McCain has never shied away.
What will happen if Pres. Obama has serious 2nd thoughts? To US? To him? And if he doesn't, if he goes along, with no real change except less swagger in the style?
A new kind of partnership between our military & civilian institutions ... by rewriting the Constitution or simply ignoring it?
ZZRice should be one of the prime targets of congressional accountability/corruption hearings after Jan '09.
Posted by sloper at 06/09/2008 @ 10:24am
You vill comply.....
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/09/2008 @ 10:35am
Condi is WRONG!
If you substitute "civilize" for "democratize", Rice is merely parroting the rationale for colonialism and conquest of the past. Whether you are "democratizing" or "civilizing" other countries, the result is the same in which a more powerful nation is claiming the right to conquer other nations that have different values than itself.
Even in the rare case of genocide, no one country should be policing the world by itself, and if we have learned anything from the Iraq entanglement it is the important of international consensus before taking the extreme measure of invading another nation.
What if a country with the Sharia decided that Shariarizing the world was its mission and that they had a right to do this because in their view the Sharia is just and they had the military power to impose this on other nations?
You simply cannot sanction the unilateral invasion of another country because of its form of government, or you open up a can of worms where others with different forms of government than are own follow this example.
Rice's articulation or re-casting of the "conquest doctrine" has no place in an advanced global society, and this cowboy mentality must be rejected by all responsible players on the international stage.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/09/2008 @ 10:40am
Metteyya,
How about that Obama speech to AIPAC the other day?
Gotta love the one about "a unified Jerusalem".
Any explanations, Budd?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/09/2008 @ 11:03am
b_kool_66
why don't you change the subject?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 11:08am
The other reason "democratizing the world" fails as a rationale for invading other countries is that if elections are truly free and fair, there is no guarantee that political parties with values you like get elected.
Rice does not honor the "democratic" result in Palestine because Hamas was elected, so we know that "democracy" is not the key driver at all. And if you only legitimize democracies where parties you like are elected, then this undermines your "democratizing" rationale altogether.
The US has lacked a consistent and coherent foreign policy for quite some time, and I think it is time this changed with the new Obama administration.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/09/2008 @ 11:11am
Condoleeza Rice was an expert on the old Soviet Union....not the Middle East.
That alone shows you where she's coming from and the fact that she's playing fast and loose with "difficulties" is to be expected from somebody whose primary concern is propping up a Bush/Cheney foreign policy.
Not a Guinness Record, but she'll probably go down as the Worse SecState in History.
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 11:12am
"a unified Jerusalem".
Did he say "unified" or "undivided"? There's a big diff between the 2 within Israel & for the Palestinians.
As for US imperial aims, if Obama actually said "unified," then this certainly isn't off-topic, alas.
As for supporting democracy in the MidEast ... what if a Hamas gets democratically elected? Watch what we've done, forget the rhetoric.
Rice's true aim with this isn't to "spread democracy" abroad, but to first spread US military power at home, by diminishing civilian control. IOW, a nonviolent military coup. So much for democracy in the US.
Some might call it treason.
Posted by sloper at 06/09/2008 @ 11:17am
Rice's true aim with this isn't to "spread democracy" abroad, but to first spread US military power at home, by diminishing civilian control. IOW, a nonviolent military coup. So much for democracy in the US.
Some might call it treason.
Posted by sloper
very good.
what's equally troubling is the mis-administration's attempt to bypass voters and democracy to try to lock in their policies through the next administration.
we are told that the next pres would be committed to treaties signed by this pres, sans congress of course.
I suggest to check with the indians about the sacrosanctity of treaties entered into by the gov't of the US.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 11:21am
You're correct Sloper, but the point is a basic one nonetheless:
Obama dropped a bombshell when he tossed that tidbit into the discussion.
In a realistic media world his speech should be a major topic of discussion. I didn't watch the Sabbath Gasbags --as Calvin Trillin so aptly refers to the Sunday political talkshows-- this weekend, bit I'd wager that they didn't touch the subject.
So Obama --who I really do like-- apparently gets away with some cheap points scored in his favor by tossing radical red meat to the AIPAC audience.
The plot thickens as the nation watches with eyes glazed over.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/09/2008 @ 11:40am
"The US has lacked a consistent and coherent foreign policy for quite some time, and I think it is time this changed with the new Obama administration."
Posted by Metteyya
You're correct. America's foreign policy has been mostly ad hoc with a predominant bent toward supporting the profitable interests of some of our most powerful corporations, and generally running roughshod over any idea of "democracy" in the countries where those profitable interests are most keen.
Nonetheless, there is an entrenched foreign policy establishment in this country --see the CFR-- that may not be entirely monolithic, but it is mostly inflexible.
I've suggested it in these threads before, and I reiterate it again now.
It would be a very good thing --we are a democracy, no?-- to see a bright, hot spotlight shined unflinchingly and continuously on the membership and connections of the Council on Foreign Relations as well as the entire constellation of related institutions that have most directly influenced, and continue influence the creation of our historically horrible foreign policy.
Any takers Nation mag?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/09/2008 @ 11:56am
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/9/2008
CFR?!?!?
Oh, KOOL, don't tell us you're going RESE on us now, are you?
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 12:06pm
By the way, for anyone here who doesn't already know, the rag that carries a heavy dose of our national foreign policy "debate", Foreign Affairs, is published by the Council on Foreign Relations.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/09/2008 @ 12:07pm
No conspiracy theories from me, Maskot.
Just a simple call for transparency and open debate.
Is that "Rese" enuf for 'ya?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/09/2008 @ 12:08pm
Condi Rice, the spokeswoman for Operation Barbaric, the US invasion of Iraq. Forget the recall, however, as things are " markedly improving". Remember, time is money.
Posted by Sorelish at 06/09/2008 @ 12:29pm
"Rice's true aim with this isn't to "spread democracy" abroad, but to first spread US military power at home, by diminishing civilian control. IOW, a nonviolent military coup. So much for democracy in the US."
Some might call it treason.
Posted by sloper at 06/9/2008
Gee, Slope this presidency has 6.5 months to go. Do ya think they can accomplish total military power before they leave?
Posted by ACook at 06/09/2008 @ 12:39pm
"Rice does not honor the "democratic" result in Palestine because Hamas was elected,..."
Posted by Metteyya at 06/9/2008
Neither does Hamas.
Posted by ACook at 06/09/2008 @ 12:42pm
"b_kool_66
why don't you change the subject?"
Posted by emile duBois at 06/9/2008
Why should he? Mettaya opened the door.
Posted by ACook at 06/09/2008 @ 12:44pm
ACook
no he didn't. he did not veer off topic. B did.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 12:48pm
Notice how Mary conveniently avoids the authorship of the column? I smell good ol' Billy Kristol, but I could just be paranoid. But Billy Boy has always been one to play fast and loose with facts. Plus, if I'm reading this column right, he's arguing that we can start coming home now! So let's have our boys pack up their stuff and come HOME!
Posted by yutsano at 06/09/2008 @ 12:52pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/9/2008
Curious, Darin...when will the BUSH ADMINISTRATION...or SENATOR JOHN McCAIN...
follow the Post's lead and declare to us that "America has WON, or is about to win, the war in Iraq"?!!??!?!?
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 12:53pm
"Just a simple call for transparency and open debate."
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/9/2008
To all things?
Posted by ACook at 06/09/2008 @ 12:57pm
MBB-We can't win or lose in Iraq because there is nothing to win nor is there anything to lose,but more American lives.It is a pointless and meaningless war that was fought in order to create an islamic state in Iraq.Creating an islamic state in Iraq is not winning nor is it losing.It has no meaning for America.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/09/2008 @ 1:07pm
i'm nobody
yes, I would go further, an islamic state is a detriment to the US.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 1:10pm
emile-You are,probably,correct.At best,we can only hope that Iraq isn't too conservative and becomes as oppressive as saddam,Iran,and Saudi Arabia,which is quite possible, and turns on us because they,also,view us as the decedent and liberal west.They will never be allies,of course..
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/09/2008 @ 1:18pm
"Notice how Mary conveniently avoids the authorship of the column?"
Posted by yutsano at 06/9/2008
Yut, he did give the link. Why not go to article and find out who the author is instead of guessing?
Posted by ACook at 06/09/2008 @ 1:20pm
Not real good examples there ACook. We universally acknowledge that those invasions were and are in fact wrong. Why? Because they were acts of aggression that resulted in the meaningless suffering of thousands and even millions. Plus saying everyone else does it is zero justification. We had a war in Iraq that ended rather quickly, now we are entangled in a meaningless occupation.
Posted by yutsano at 06/09/2008 @ 1:20pm
Why not? Hitler did it, Stalin did it. Saddam did it, Hirohito did it. The countries of France, England, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Greece and a host of others did it as well. All of these "unilateral" invasions were done before us. They've done it for centuries. Besides, didn't most of these invasions came from "perceived" threats?Posted by ACook at 06/9/2008
Your sense of ethics is a wonder to behold.
Posted by Sorelish at 06/09/2008 @ 1:21pm
it's so comforting to have so much in common with Hitler and Stalin.
oh when the dictators go marchin' in,
I wanna be in that number
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 1:23pm
Posted by ACook at 06/9/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
Wow...it looks like Acook just tried to justify the US invasion of Iraq by saying "Hitler did it, Stalin did it. Saddam did it, Hirohito did it."
Brilliant arguement. Go ahead lefities...just try to refute that logic.
Posted by Lillian at 06/09/2008 @ 1:25pm
Lillian
pretty good. huh?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 1:30pm
I got my issue of Foreign Affairs Friday, and saw the BIG HEADLINE on Rice's article. It gave me a headache, and I haven't removed the plastic wrapping yet.
Ms. Rice is, I believe, manuvering for a position in a McCain administration, as this appears to fit in well with his absurd "League of Democracies" idea.
The best way for America to spread democracy abroad is to engage with the world, not dictate to it. Ms. Rice's "realism" has presented the world with an America that tortures and brutalizes the very people it seeks to "liberate". The grotesque economic distortions this "realism" is imposing on us are making increasing segments of the home population invisible in a shroud of poverty and dispair. I'm sure our fine response to Hurricane Katrina made democracy look just dandy.
The best way for America to spread democracy abroad is to empower the American people at home to construct a society that reflects our best ideals. The American people are so much better than the sleazy culture of theft promoted by rich "entreprenuers" like Bush and Cheney, both of whom made their fortunes by using their political connections to suck off of the government tit. "Free market" indeed! A democracy based on stolen elections - how nice! Yep, that's some sure fired way to promote democracy. Add our military power to the mix, and we'll have oppressed populations just showering us with rose petals.
Wait, doesn't China manufacture key components of our military infrastructure - you know - so we could off-load all those nasty manufacturing jobs in the interest of "national security" and "free market ideals"? Don't they own our debt as well? How's that democracy working in China, anyways? Hmmmm.....
Condi,"get real"!
Posted by Dwight Wall at 06/09/2008 @ 1:33pm
>>>Metteyya,
How about that Obama speech to AIPAC the other day?
Gotta love the one about "a unified Jerusalem".
Any explanations, Budd?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/9/2008 <<<
You will see that Obama did not foreclose the possibility of Jerusalem being the capitol of BOTH Palestine and Israel.
Sharing the capitol as opposed to "dividing" it would send a powerful message of reconciliation after years of conflict and bloodshed.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/09/2008 @ 1:36pm
Dwight Wall
good post, D
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 1:37pm
Z Z Rice is not to be taken seriously. She has proven to be the parrot for the neo - cons, realist, idealist or whoever she thinks will get her ahead. If she has ideas of her own it is not clear. Just read this
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21192
Posted by hkeirc at 06/09/2008 @ 1:38pm
If Condi was any bigger of a clown, she would trip over her big floppy shoes while her red nose fell off! It's disgusting that the Secretary of State, whose only qualifications for the job was that she's is Bush's main cheerleader, cannot put that education of hers to good use and stop trying to put a happy face on the all-but-discredited Bush Doctrine.
Posted by RPerry at 06/09/2008 @ 1:42pm
hkeirc
good one, thanks
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 1:45pm
["b_kool_66
why don't you change the subject?"
Posted by emile duBois]
Why should he? Mettaya opened the door.
Posted by ACook
ACook,
no he didn't. he did not veer off topic. B did.
Posted by emile duBois
A Cook,
"Emile" has been a bit hot and bothered ever since I had the gall to suggest that Obama might not currently fit the category of "commoner".
Forget the fact that the suggestion was hardly a central point, but merely a rhetorical opening to broach a full throated discussion of the most prominent political forces that have Obama's ear, and are thus likely to have secured a significant degree of his allegiance --i.e. the financial services industry (Goldman Sachs etc.).
In any case, I felt it was pertinent to ask Metteyya for his reaction to Obama's most recent AIPAC speech since Budd Lite has been a feverish Obama partisan on these threads. As expected, Metteyya chose to ignore the entirely fair, and indeed, critically important line of inquiry regarding the highly inflammatory remarks of Obama on an "undivided Jerusalem" --not a position advocated by anyone seriously interested in a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conundrum.
Additionally, a discussion of Obama's recent remarks would be an excellent segue from the rather obviously ridiculous ramblings of Condi Rice in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs.
Can anyone truly take that fruit bat seriously?
"Dr." Rice my ass.
Dr. Demento would perhaps apply more aptly.
UPDATE: I see Budd Lite has courageously picked up the "undivided Jerusalem" grenade --and promptly passed it on via essentially a non-answer.
Heroically done, Metteyya.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/09/2008 @ 1:46pm
Posted by yutsano at 06/9/2008
Yut, the point was intended to remind Mett that countries will almost always put their interest first, ahead of everything else.
Posted by ACook at 06/09/2008 @ 1:55pm
By the way, very fine (as well as entertaining) posts by Dwight Wall, hkeirc, and RPerry.
I strongly encourage more of these intelligent and funny voices to join these Nation threads more often.
I know you're out there, people.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/09/2008 @ 1:55pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/9/2008
MBB,
The Repubs keep "re-defining" winning in Iraq in self-serving terms.
Since when is 20 causalities in a particular month "winning"?
Since when is defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq - which was created by the US invasion of Iraq - constitute "winning"?
Since when does a state-run newspaper article about Sunnis and Shias applauding disarming insurgents constitute winning?
If it were true that in 2004, we had 20 casualties in a particular month, then why didn't we "win" at that time and bring our troops home?
I think it is clear that the Repubs recognize that continuation of the war is not going to lead to victory in November so they are trying to claim "victory" now so they can jump on the Democratic band-wagon of bringing our troops home. The plain fact is the Republicans milked this war for as long as possible to fleece the (future) taxpayer with outrageous amounts of 12 figure debt (hundreds of billions of dollars) so that a few defense contractors could get richer.
It is LOSING when your public policy only benefits a handful of people at the expense of everyone else.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/09/2008 @ 1:56pm
"Your sense of ethics is a wonder to behold."
Posted by Sorelish at 06/9/2008
Your idea about my sense of ethics is irrelevant.
Posted by ACook at 06/09/2008 @ 2:05pm
Metteyya
consistently fine posting
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 2:06pm
Let's change the frame of this whole debate. You cannot win an occupation period. There is no "winning" in Iraq. There is cleaning up as much mess as possible and coming home with as many of our good soldiers intact as possible. So why state it for anything other than what it is: a big money pit until we get tired and go home.
Posted by yutsano at 06/09/2008 @ 2:06pm
Metteyya,
It's not of much use to attempt arguing with someone who quotes another histrionic "news" story from the Post about how we're finally "winning" in Iraq.
That's a bit like engaging in a debate versus a tape recorder.
Not very interesting, enlightening, or fruitful.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/09/2008 @ 2:08pm
Posted by ACook at 06/9/2008
My apologies, I know how widely you're admired on this site.
Posted by Sorelish at 06/09/2008 @ 2:10pm
yutsano
you too, fine posting
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 2:10pm
What "Condi" really has in mind is making the world safe for Condi. She is probably one of the few Bush administration people who has any interest in travelling outside the US. So she would probably prefer it if she didn't have to worry about arrest for her crimes against humanity.
Posted by hsansom at 06/09/2008 @ 2:11pm
"The best way for America to spread democracy abroad is to empower the American people at home to construct a society that reflects our best ideals."
Posted by Dwight Wall at 06/9/2008
The best way to empower the American people would be to dump the current educational system along with the NEA.
Posted by ACook at 06/09/2008 @ 2:13pm
by b_kool_66...
--"undivided Jerusalem" grenade --and promptly passed it on via essentially a non-answer.
Heroically done, Metteyya.--
Still casting aspersions, doubt and suspicion... bk66?
You want humor... but you don't want to hear riddles?
Settle down, and think it over for your self. Ponder about what Obama might have meant... from within your best understanding of what his meaning 'might possibly be'.
A true populist plants seeds and nurtures what grows.
One world... and we're gonna have to share it and get along.
Posted by ttr at 06/09/2008 @ 2:15pm
"What "Condi" really has in mind is making the world safe for Condi. She is probably one of the few Bush administration people who has any interest in travelling outside the US. So she would probably prefer it if she didn't have to worry about arrest for her crimes against humanity."
Posted by hsansom at 06/9/2008
If that were the case, then why hasn't any country (friend or foe) arrested her for crimes against humanity now?
Posted by ACook at 06/09/2008 @ 2:18pm
Emile and B Kool, thank you for the kind words. I'll confess to being fairly new to this kind of thing, so your thoughtful encouragement is welcome.
Notice how this current administration gets me kind of riled up? If you go to www.myspace.com/livesinlimbo and choose in particular the song "Fight It!" you'll find me in a medium I'm more comfortable in.
Posted by Dwight Wall at 06/09/2008 @ 2:22pm
At this point, I find myself debating the need for a long-term presence in Iraq. Too complete of an exit has huge risks. There's not too much preventing a combination of chronic civil war, exponentially increased acrimony and, yes, acquisition of WMDs over the next five-ten years. The 'soft federalism' / Biden vision would be immeasurably better and is probably simply the only viable plan for any form of democracy. But I confess I'm far from an expert!
Anyway, Condi like Powell have turned out to be such disappointments. Heartbreaking inasmuch as they had the impossible black curse of having to be so much better than their white counterparts to really make a mark in history. But maybe their rise, their prominence and their fall - was just what Obama needed. I think lots of whites wanted to see Condi truly develop into a states'man', and were disappointed time and again.
Perhaps her biggest deficit, besides these tangled neocon beliefs, is her lack of gravitas. Just never developed, IMO.
Posted by winyahn at 06/09/2008 @ 2:22pm
ACook-Dumping our educational system would simply confuse most Americans,but would not empower us.Most war criminals are never brought to justice and many criminals are never brought to justice,but that does not mean that they aren't guilty of something.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/09/2008 @ 2:23pm
"If Condi was any bigger of a clown, she would trip over her big floppy shoes while her red nose fell off! It's disgusting that the Secretary of State, whose only qualifications for the job was that she's is Bush's main cheerleader, cannot put that education of hers to good use and stop trying to put a happy face on the all-but-discredited Bush Doctrine."
Posted by RPerry at 06/9/2008
I disagree, Condi's a helluva lot better than Madeline Albright or Henry Kissinger.
Posted by ACook at 06/09/2008 @ 2:25pm
--The best way for America to spread democracy abroad...--
Great post DW...
But I think the best way for America to spread Democracy abroad, would inarguably be... to have one that makes them envious.
Physician, heal thy self...
Posted by ttr at 06/09/2008 @ 2:28pm
"Ms. Rice is, I believe, manuvering for a position in a McCain administration,"
Nah, she ain't that dumb. Ain't gonna be no McC admin. She's got her eye on the $$$. A good GOPer. She'll sit a a few military industrial boards, Chevron, Stanford trustee ... and lobby lobby lobby.
ZZRice should also be a target of accountability/corruption investigations. But given the invertebrate conditions of most Dem senators & reps, it's empire empire empire, with impunity. Until the great collapse.
Meanwhile, they gain, and only the rest of us pay.
Such a deal.
Posted by sloper at 06/09/2008 @ 2:29pm
Posted by ACook at 06/9/2008
What about Samantha Powers and Susan E. Rice?
Posted by Metteyya at 06/09/2008 @ 2:30pm
"Still casting aspersions, doubt and suspicion... bk66?"
Posted by ttr
No, ttr, I'm simply attempting to encourage a healthy level of skepticism --as opposed to the cynicism that it satisfies you to paint me with-- and open discussion of the as yet nascent policies of Obama --particularly in the critical fields of foreign policy and domestic economic policy.
The time to apply the appropriate pressure on Obama is now --not after the election.
Your brother in peace,
~b kool
P.S. I highly recommend readers here take the time to view Bill Moyers keynote address to this past weekend's Media Reform conference in Minneapolis.
"Equality is the Heart of Democracy" is just one of the wonderful catchphrases that Moyers employed.
I'd nominate Moyers for a post as our national laureate preacher to the national conscience --an updated version of the national poet laureate.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/09/2008 @ 2:32pm
MBB:
So after 6 years the Iraqis finally had a battle where the majority of them didn't run away. Well, whoopie-shit. I feel better already. In fact, it almost seems worth the $30,000 spent in the 30 secs it took to type this, but that's about all. How long does it take to train US troops? I believe boot camp is what, 6 weeks? Then a month or so of more technical training. So 6 years seems a tad bit long don't you think? Especially if they haven't yet taken control of their own damn country right (oops, there goes another $30K at $1,000/second)
As to the applauds about AQ ... is there some reason we should feel good about chasing a faction out that we caused to be there in the first place?
I believe the technical term is bwah-ha-ha...
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/09/2008 @ 2:33pm
"ACook-Dumping our educational system would simply confuse most Americans,but would not empower us.Most war criminals are never brought to justice and many criminals are never brought to justice,but that does not mean that they aren't guilty of something."
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/9/2008
IM, the American public is already confused. The current educational system took away any ability for young people to seriously advance themselves. They are no longer required to think and reason.
Posted by ACook at 06/09/2008 @ 2:37pm
AC....you can put a bit of that blame on NCLB.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/09/2008 @ 2:42pm
Or, as e e cummings said:
ygUDuh
ydoan yunnuhstan
ydoan o yunnuhstand dem yguduh ged
yunnuhstan dem doidee yguduh ged riduh ydoan o nudn
LISN bud LISN
dem gud am
lidl yelluh bas tuds weer goin
duhSIVILEYEzum
Posted by mikecope at 06/09/2008 @ 2:47pm
The best way to empower the American people would be to dump the current educational system along with the NEA.--------Posted by ACook at 06/9/2008
In favor of....what?
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 2:48pm
good stuff, cope
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/09/2008 @ 2:49pm
ACook-Our current educational system did not take away a child's ability to think and reason nor did it take away their ability to advance themselves since there kids who are getting a quality education in many of these schools and are advancing themselves..Too many people are employed by the public school system to just get rid of it and it is usually much easier to improve on what you have then it is to start over again.We should take a look at what the Japanese have.They combine public and private and we could use what we have in place to evolve to that.Yes,our system needs improving,but just getting rid of it means that you have to replace it with something.What would you suggest that we replace it with that won't cause massive economic problems?
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/09/2008 @ 2:50pm
"What about Samantha Powers and Susan E. Rice?"
Posted by Metteyya at 06/9/2008
What about them? Susan's background is in African Affairs and Samantha background is in human rights. Neither of which could suit Obama should he win the presidency. He may find himself gravating towards a more senior person in order to get a better understanding of certain countries he may deal with.
Posted by ACook at 06/09/2008 @ 2:54pm
Isn't it funny? Condi Rice, an African American woman, falls hook, line, and sinker for the 19th century "white man's burden" attitude toward global hegemony. Welcome to the 21'st century and equal opportunity imperialism!
Posted by raaustin at 06/09/2008 @ 3:11pm
In the mind of the neoconservative, the Iraq War has been a success, despite some of the "difficulties" encountered along the way. Like any true believer, the neocon knows that vindication lies in the future and that skeptics will ultimately be proven wrong. In the neocon's world, further military adventures, such as against Iran, are completely reasonable, and, thus necessary. The lesson for the rest of us is that even highly intelligent individuals are not immune to delusional thinking.
Posted by robgo2 at 06/09/2008 @ 3:11pm
If that were the case, then why hasn't any country (friend or foe) arrested her for crimes against humanity now?
Posted by ACook at 06/9/2008
Well that's easy. America would never let them. We would go to war before we would let one our leaders be brought to accountability for their actions.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/09/2008 @ 3:14pm
raaustin
you nailed it.
a poster above stated that we must stay in Iraq to prevent them from getting WMD years in the future. by that standard we need to invade and occupy many, many nations, perhaps ALL other nations.
wait, we have troops stationed in over 130 countries.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 3:16pm
Darin I once again say this. Everyone is jumping the gun wayy to quick on this whole we have achieved victory kick. Didn't you learn from Bush the first time? We need to realize that just because the Iraqi army managed to push into 3 cities doesn't mean we are "winning". We aren't dealing with the Germans. This is a constantly morphing ever changing ever moving enemy. There is no simple determination of win or lose. They could easily be pulling back in order to mount attacks elsewhere and then when we have degraded their ability to fight full scale battles they will switch to suicide bombs in large scale. Don't be so quick to declare victory. Bush did it once and now that video is relegated to history as proof of his idiocy.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/09/2008 @ 3:17pm
>>>What about them? Susan's background is in African Affairs and Samantha background is in human rights. Neither of which could suit Obama should he win the presidency. He may find himself gravating towards a more senior person in order to get a better understanding of certain countries he may deal with.
Posted by ACook at 06/9/2008<<<
Well I heard Susan on TV the other day and she is as sharp as they come. She is a Rhodes Scholar from Stanford and could easily fill the role of NSC adviser with Samantha being Secretary of State.
She certainly has more experience and education than Condi when Condi was tapped for the NSC. While her experience to date has been African Affairs, she showed broad understanding and insight into international affairs and security issues in her CNN segment, and I was truly impressed!
Samantha's background in human rights is a much more important diplomatic mission than merely helping out a few American companies make money abroad or placating Likud, which was the focus of Bush's "diplomatic" efforts.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/09/2008 @ 3:22pm
3C how exactly do you win an occupation? The actual war ended way back in 2003, what we've been doing is occupying another country for unclarified purposes. There is no "victory" there, there is only possibly making sure the inevitable bloodbath is somehow ameliorated. Damned if we leave and damned if we stay.
Posted by yutsano at 06/09/2008 @ 3:26pm
" The lesson for the rest of us is that even highly intelligent individuals are not immune to delusional thinking."
Posted by robgo2
Excellent point, Rob.
I was just saying to a good friend of mine that an instructive analog for what's happened in the US with reference to the Iraq debacle is the concept of mass hysteria, and in particular the witch hunts of the middle ages throughout much of Europe.
Carl Sagan's book, The Demon Haunted World, contains a chapter discussing in vivid detail the horrors that occurred in just one city, Wurzburg, Germany, when the tempest swept town through violently taking the lives of a broad segment of the society including the mayor's daughter.
Most of us prefer to believe that we've advanced so far since then, yet the underlying program remains largely unchanged and continues to erupt in periodic bouts of ultimately self-destructive behavior.
But hang on to hope I believe we must.
And engaging in the public sphere is a healthy way to fight back against the demons that continuously lurk amongst us.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/09/2008 @ 3:30pm
Damned if we leave and damned if we stay.
Posted by yutsano at 06/9/2008
Ain't that the truth.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/09/2008 @ 3:42pm
raustin: right on.
Nothing new, however, as, sell-out Condi matches the comprador tradition that began in colonial Asia.
"A native-born agent in China and certain other Asian countries formerly employed by a foreign business to serve as a collaborator or intermediary in commercial transactions."
The descendants of the most successful comprador families are among the Hong Kong billionaires today.
ZZRice has high aspiration$$$, selling out others with whom one might have thought she could feel some empathy.
Posted by sloper at 06/09/2008 @ 3:42pm
and in particular the witch hunts of the middle ages throughout much of Europe.
we don't have to to the middle ages and we don't have to go to europe for real witch hunts. see Arthur Miller "The Crucible", perhaps his best play.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 3:44pm
Condi Rice is proof positive that a very bright person with very limited vision and perspective can inflict a great deal of damage.
Posted by Egalitare at 06/09/2008 @ 4:14pm
Condi had the biggest opportunity of any Black Woman ever, to make her mark and give young Black women an excellent role model.In my opinion she blew it big time.
To me she has nothing to show for the position she has held and she may have people looking at Mrs Obama in a wary way.
The flip side is Should Barack get elected Mrs Obama has the chance to show the greatness and strength of the true Black Woman.
Posted by eniobob at 06/09/2008 @ 4:26pm
or the current bastard child of satan and hitler....GW
and the morons who keep regurgitating end times nonsense and biblical prophecy, etc. etc.....it is called a "self-fulfilling prophecy" when you just keep doing the same thing, driving SUV, etc...and expect a different result....that is the neo-con and McBush strategy, just drill for oil, eventually science will come up w/something geosequestration not proven to keep carbon either...but eventually science will do something, these are the same neocons who don't believe in global warming or climate change while it is day five of unprecedented heat wave in UPSTATE NEW YORK....95 humid, smog, and ozone level too dangerous to go outside for 15 minutes, this is what we are telling the other countries we are attacking that they should aspire to!!!!
Posted by jrs112 at 06/09/2008 @ 4:32pm
"Condi Rice is proof positive that a very bright person with very limited vision and perspective can inflict a great deal of damage."--Egalitare
The best book that I have read illustrating this point is David Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest." Written during the Vietnam War era, it shows how even the smartest of people will commit grievous errors if their thinking is based on false assumptions and wrong information. The current administration is most certainly not populated by the best and brightest of their generation--just the most ruthless and egomaniacal. Condi is reasonably bright, but, as I mentioned in my previous post, delusional. The whole neoconservative worldview is based on false assumptions about the nature of geopolitics. Within the neocon fold, the belief in these assumptions is unshakeable. Facts must be distorted so as to fit with the theory. Hence, the delusions. So it is with most religious belief.
Posted by robgo2 at 06/09/2008 @ 5:04pm
Um. Maybe if America's "values" didn't promote state-sponsored torture, acts of rendition, kangaroo courts, threats to free speech, general acceptability of pre-emptive war and pissing on habeas corpus – maybe she'd have something here.
Otherwise, isn't this just a sick joke?
Posted by eric72 at 06/09/2008 @ 5:53pm
there are many here among us,
who think that life is but a joke.
Zimmy
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 7:14pm
This has been a fairly lively thread today at The Nation.
Much appreciation to everyone.
Since The Nation appears reluctant (or simply damn slow) to return the html functions --especially the ability to link articles for easy reference-- that we're a large part of reason I've enjoyed blogging here, I have been occasionally posting pieces that may be a bit lengthy, but engaging, pertinent and worthwhile hopefully.
Here's one from the Israeli writer, Uri Avnery, today at Counterpunch:
OBAMA, ISRAEL and AIPAC
After months of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.
And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.
That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.
IT WAS a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.
The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday.
The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the world's capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon.
The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of political life in the US and the world at large.
WHY, ACTUALLY? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?
The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in the US is also not an insignificant factor.
Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich. Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions.
True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance - and do so with fervor - to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival.
But in a presidential race?
* * *
THE TRANSPARENT fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates.
Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.
And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!
The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime.
And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.
OK he promises to safeguard Israel's security at any cost. That is usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hizbullah - an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.)
But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.
NO PALESTINIAN, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.
On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.
Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan "Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity". Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.
In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.
Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great.
But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future - if and when he is elected president.
* * *
SIXTY FIVE years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. They were unable to prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything significant to stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many Afro-Americans did not dare to go near the polling stations for fear of dogs being set on them.)
What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?
The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.
The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) The founders of American society were "pilgrims", the Zionists immigrants called themselves "olim" - short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a "promised land", believing themselves to be God's chosen people.
Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as "pioneers", who make the wilderness bloom, a "people without land in a land without people". Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other.
True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that persisted for many generations in the US. But since the Americans have repressed these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to prevent them from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in the unconscious mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed guilt feelings that express themselves in the denial of their past misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power.
* * *
HOW IS it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100% with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible.
Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: "Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself."
I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.
Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.
If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: "No, I can't!"
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/09/2008 @ 7:18pm
"Probably right before the election."
Posted by marybretbrad
Since the vast majority of Iraqi's are vehemently opposed to the American occupation, no one should be shocked to see a significant spike in violence as the American election approaches.
Bet on it.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/09/2008 @ 7:22pm
I'm confused. Z.Z Rice (good new nickname) is suppose to be a Secy. of State - not a dictator telling the rest of her children what she wants them to do.
Since she clearly does NOT know the difference between spouting Chimpys' global stupidity versus actually trying to engage and learn from different points of view, you get this mess we're in today.
I'm amazed that anyone around the world listens to her anymore since she obviously has no clue what she's talking about. I thought Ms. Albright produced a better student brain than this but I guess I was wrong.
Since the rest of the world (reality) is ignoring her, even Russia (which is suppose to be her specialty), why is she even bothering to speak? Is it just to get press before she boards the Chimpy express to the Hague? Does she think the ICC will have some mercy on her? I think not.
Maybe just her shoes are the wrong size and this fantasy is all she can think of to read aloud....
Posted by Winski at 06/09/2008 @ 7:29pm
robgo2 - you're aware that John McCain wrote a forward for "The Best and the Brightest"? It's not in all printed editions.
Posted by eric72 at 06/09/2008 @ 7:32pm
he wrote the forewOrd?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 7:37pm
Yep...this is part of it:
"It was a shameful thing to ask men to suffer and die, to persevere through god-awful afflictions and heartache, to endure the dehumanizing experiences that are unavoidable in combat, for a cause that the country wouldn't support over time and that our leaders so wrongly believed could be achieved at a smaller cost than our enemy was prepared to make us pay. No other national endeavor requires as much unshakable resolve as war. If the nation and the government lack that resolve, it is criminal to expect men in the field to carry it alone."
Posted by eric72 at 06/09/2008 @ 7:38pm
"(True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) "
no, they were secularists. big difference.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 7:39pm
they did not all come from europe, as I have pointed out before. the arab riots of the 20 and 30s made life less comfortable for mid east jews, and they started to leave, after 48 almost all jews were expelled from the arab lands.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 7:42pm
You expose a couple of reasonable bones of some minor contention, Emile, but as for the overall thrust of the essay I believe Mr. Avnery has produced a feast of food for thought.
If the level of discussion over the Israeli-Palestinian conundrum in America were to somehow even approach the level of sophistication of the multitude of fine native Israeli writers such as Avnery, we would be light years ahead of where we stand today in reference to Mideast peace.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/09/2008 @ 7:56pm
>>democratic state building <<
Translation - Imperialism
Posted by digit at 06/09/2008 @ 8:06pm
b_kool_66
I will admit to being a stickler for facts.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 8:09pm
America, spreading love and democracy one war at a time.
Because war is peace, the economy is great and the jobless recovery is doing well.
Posted by digit at 06/09/2008 @ 8:20pm
digit
by George, I think he's got it.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 8:47pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/mccain-vows-to-campaign-i_b_ 106055.html
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 9:01pm
>>> Kind of like Briton and Hong Kong, India, South Africa and the US.
Posted by marybretbrad at 06/9/2008<<<
Are kidding?
Briton CONQUERED India and then was driven out by the mass civil disobedience movement of Gandhi.
South Africa was "colonized" by the Dutch, and their racist apartheid system was so disgusting that it took a serious disinvestment movement to dismantle it.
Are you seriously suggesting that the US should use these examples of "democratizing" other nations?
It looks like neo-Colonialism is alive and well with idiots like Rice and McCain talking about "democratizing" (conquering) the world!
Posted by Metteyya at 06/09/2008 @ 9:03pm
The NYPost editorial makes the same mistake that the current bit of triumphalism re Iraq makes, a confusion of means and ends.
If the purpose of the surge was to reduce US casualties, that would be better achieved by withdrawing US troops.
Regarding the Iraqi army's "successes". Basra was only quieted down after Maliki reached out to the Sadrists via Iran and struck a deal and because he had Anglo-American military backing. A cease-fire, incidentally, isn't a laying down of arms. Likewise, the Mahdi Army did what any guerrilla force did when faced with a direct offensive, they chose to lay low. Not the same as laying down arms and certainly a transient solution at best.
Further, as the International Crisis Group pointed out in a recent report (http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5418&l=1), no progress has been made regarding the underlying political issues that the surge was supposed to facilitate. No hydrocarbons law, no accord regarding federalism or the Kurdish issue and a "reconciliation" bill that arguably is a step backwards.
Failing these, the surge is, at best, a transient tactical success.
Posted by brunowe at 06/10/2008 @ 04:23am
What "Condi" really has in mind is making the world safe for Condi. She is probably one of the few Bush administration people who has any interest in travelling outside the US. So she would probably prefer it if she didn't have to worry about arrest for her crimes against humanity.
Posted by hsansom
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To late for that.
Posted by Langx at 06/10/2008 @ 06:57am
"Kind of like Briton and Hong Kong, India, South Africa and the US."----Posted by marybretbrad at 06/9/2008
Okay...have to ask...please give details on how "Briton" deliberately "established democracies" in Hong Kong?!!?....India....South Africa?!??!?!...and the US?
Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008 @ 09:01am
anybody see Kucinic present his exhaustive case for impeachment?
I don't think Bush will be held responsible, somewhat like Pinochet.
he will pardon all the torturers on his way out the door.
the rest of the world will likely not be so blind to justice. none of the torturer enablers will be able to travel abroad safely, as interpol will be likely to arrest them.
that said, it is essential that the still somewhat hidden truth will be exposed.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 09:10am
"robgo2 - you're aware that John McCain wrote a forward for "The Best and the Brightest"? It's not in all printed editions."--eric72
Eric, I did not know that. I read the first edition shortly after it was published in 1974(?)
Posted by robgo2 at 06/10/2008 @ 10:58am
People on this post are saying ZZ Rice is a great nickname...
Can one of you simply state what ZZ Rice signifies?
Posted by Freiheit at 06/10/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
Geez Freheit.....CONDOLEZZA......is the light on yet?
Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2008 @ 11:11am
The ZZ Rice thing - here's my guess:
1. ZZ appears in her last name 2. It conveys a picture of the cold, heartless, rich, bitch (call her TziTzi, or something rich-sounding) 3. Sounds like ZZTops, therefore has a linguistic ring to it 4. It evokes the sound (onomatopaeic) of Condi ZZ-ing across the tarmac (or around the world) in one of her many pairs of shoes to bring the light of American democracy to the poor benighted denizens of EarthUSA. 5. It insinuates that anything she says causes the listener to go into deep sleep, or to another place (a better place) to escape her mushroom clouds, and other "misverbalizations" (my word).
Posted by canadiankid at 06/10/2008 @ 12:42pm
MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference?
GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges.
BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better.
MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there?
BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:08:56 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2008 @ 1:48pm
MODERATOR: Sure, absolutely, sure. Somalia.
BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. AND SO I DON'T THINK OUR TROOPS OUGHT TO BE USED FOR WHAT'S CALLED NATION-BUILDING. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2008 @ 1:52pm
MODERATOR: The use of the military, there -- some people are now suggesting that if you don't want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind that comes in after the military that builds nations or all of that? Is that on your radar screen?
BUSH: I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. IT NEEDS TO BE IN OUR VITAL INTEREST, THE MISSION NEEDS TO BE CLEAR, AND THE EXIT STRATEGY OBVIOUS.
egad!
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2008 @ 1:55pm
Pretty scary stuff.
Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2008 @ 2:37pm
Since the vast majority of Iraqi's are vehemently opposed to the American occupation, no one should be shocked to see a significant spike in violence as the American election approaches.
Bet on it.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/9/2008
Question is if the mass media will cover it?
Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2008 @ 2:41pm
WTH? This one is no better then her boss, just a know nothing bag of hot air, running around the globe starting and then putting out fires. Go home sweetie and take a break for a few year, then maybe you will see all the lies your were told.
Posted by lvdragonlady at 06/10/2008 @ 4:23pm
condi Nation building??? you meant Nation dominating didn't you? We had a great man in government once,and our government turned him into a liar.He was so ashamed, he retired from the military he dearly loved. they've turned condi into a liar,which apparently is her cup of tea,and obviously there is no shame there,in which she intends to lie all the way to the end.
the mans name was Colon Powell
Posted by SAMBO at 06/11/2008 @ 2:26pm
SHOW ME THE MONEY
Perhaps the only thing on which a former associate and I agreed was international relations is NOT an academic discipline. Most international relations "study" distinguishable from history is more akin to media editorial writing than academic investigation. In this essay, Condoleeza Rice reaffirms our judgment.
Perhaps most lacking in the field (a more accurate word than "discipline") is economics (admittedly having its own difficulties). Rice reveals this intellectual lacuna when referencing, "the generational work ahead of helping to bring about a better, more democratic, and more prosperous Middle East." Yes Condi, your commitment to democracy is admirable, especially revealed by your attempts to supplant the undemocratically elected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Hamas, Vladimir Putin, . . . , etc. Against these usurpers, admirable is your holding the democratically elected George W. Bush in the millennial year of 2000 as a beacon.
Missing in your commitment to "the generational work ahead," however, is consideration of the simple problem of "Fed: High energy, food prices keep economy weak." From where, pray tell, is the money to come?
Posted by philandrel at 06/11/2008 @ 3:18pm
From where, pray tell, is the money to come?
Posted by philandrel
made in china.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/11/2008 @ 3:34pm
RE: frosty zoom
Touche!
Posted by philandrel at 06/11/2008 @ 3:56pm
Geez Freheit.....CONDOLEZZA......is the light on yet?
Posted by OneVote
fonny, fonny
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 10:39am